THE BOOKS WHICH WE CALL "SCRIPTURE;"—WHAT IS THEIR REAL CHARACTER?

IN our last Number we began to search out and develope several reasons which seemed to lead to the conclusion, that the Bible must be that Divine Revelation which Socrates and Plato saw to be necessary, and which they were led, by a consideration of the Divine benevolence, to expect that God would one day give to man. But at this point we were arrested by an important distinction, which has been made by many so-called "Biblical critics" of the present day. "We do not doubt or question," they say, "the fact, that the Spirit of God often speaks in the books of Holy Scripture. We have no objection to admit, in a limited sense, that those books were written by His inspiration. But we deny everything like the infallibility of Scripture, or verbal inspiration. We see "no foundation in the Gospels or Epistles for any supernatural view of inspiration." The writers "nowhere lead us to suppose that they were free from error or infirmity."*

Thus, the Holy Spirit speaks in the books of the Bible, but the books of the Bible were not actually dictated by the Holy Spirit. These books were written by men "who were not free from error or infirmity," even when writing them. Dr. Colenso, following this line of argument, thinks that the books commonly ascribed to Moses were written hundreds of years after Moses' day, and were palmed upon the Hebrews by the writers as "books of Moses." The narrative of the Exodus he disbelieves, and much of the history of the march through the Wilderness he tries to shew to be absurdly incredible. Still, he finds passages which he holds to have been "inspired by the Holy Ghost;" and then he quotes other passages, from the Shasters of "the Sikh Gooroos," and from another Indian document, of which he says, "The writer of these verses surely learned such living truths as these by the secret teaching of the Spirit of God."

Thus, by this newest phase of infidelity, the Bible is lowered, and the Shasters raised. Both are admitted to have in them Divine teaching; and both are denied, alike, the possession of infallibility. In neither the one nor the other would Dr. Colenso find any sure guide, any unerring instructor. In both alike he thinks that he finds "living truths," but merely because, in both, he finds passages which commend themselves to his taste and feelings and judgment.

We entirely demur to this view, and have no objection, in doing so, to follow Professor Jowett's suggestion, and to accept * Professor Jowett, in "Essays and Reviews," p. 345.

a proposal made by him. He defines Inspiration to be "That idea of Scripture which we gather from the knowledge of it." The definition is not a lucid or a happy one; but we agree in this, that our safest plan is to turn to the books of Holy Scripture, and to enquire of them, what account they give of their own character, and the mode of their production. Nothing is more common now-a-days than to hear it boldly maintained, that "Scripture nowhere asserts its own inspiration." Let us see, then, whether or not this assertion is true.

We shall not, however, lay any stress on the term "Inspiration." It is a word which is used in two very different senses; and thus it often has an ambiguity of meaning. St. Paul tells us that "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God." The Church, in one of her Collects, teaches us to pray, "that by Thy holy inspiration we may think those things that be good.' Therefore, argue some,-the sacred writers were inspired, and we also pray to be inspired. We, however, remain still fallible and erring creatures, and fallible and erring creatures were the Prophets and Apostles.

From such a "strife of words" as this we desire to make our escape; and we ask, "Is there no definition of the real character of the books of Holy Scripture, to which we may resort, and upon which we may lay hold, as furnishing us with a practical solution of the question which we are now endeavouring to determine ?"

There is such a definition. In his Epistle to the Romans, (chap. iii.), St. Paul asks, “What advantage, then, hath the Jew?" and he instantly replies to his own question, "Much every way chiefly, because that unto them were committed the ORACLES OF GOD." The main, the grand distinction and privilege appertaining to the Jews, was, that they were appointed by God to be "the keepers of His Oracles."

This word, however, has something misty and uncertain about it. "Oracles"-we feel that we have only a doubtful and hesitating grasp of its meaning;-What is an "Oracle"?

We look back, then, to the original force and purport of the word, and we find that, in plainer English, it means "the utterances," the words of God.* Our ideas at once become more clear and definite.

The utterances of God." Yes, but they are written. Can we rely upon the writers, upon those who recorded these utterances? How came they by this high office? St. Peter replies, that "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." And the books which they left us, and which were

"ORACLE: from Oro, to utter." But the word has a much more extensive meaning: "Oracle," says Dr.. Johnson, is "something delivered by supernatural wisdom;" and he gives

the following quotation :-"The main principle whereupon our belief of all things therein contained dependeth, is, that the Scriptures are the Oracles of God himself."

"committed" to the keeping of the Jews, were in this way "the utterances," the words of God. Moses, thus, says Stephen, "received the lively oracles," the utterances, the words of God,"to give unto us" (Acts vii. 38). The writers, says Archbishop Ussher, were certain holy men whom God chose to be his secretaries," and who thus became "the penmen of the Holy Ghost."

66

This, surely, is the most accurate and satisfactory of all views of what is called "Inspiration." It allows freely of both the human element and the Divine, in the books of Holy Scripture. An earthly king, if he really rules and governs, will require one or more secretaries, to be always signifying his pleasure to his principal and subordinate officers. He will direct what shall be said. He will then leave his secretaries to use their own style, to employ their own language. And yet, if he really discharges his own duty, he will superintend every letter that is written; he will dictate every command, he will allow no untrue statement to go forth under the sanction of His name. Now, this constant superintendance and direction, which in an earthly king would be imperfect, in God is absolutely perfect: -it is perpetual, it is entire. He has left one prophet or apostle to employ one style, and another to employ another; but upon what was so written, his eye was constantly fixed; and no command, no instruction, no history, no prediction, was ever allowed to be given, except it was precisely what He purposed and resolved to give. And thus, as the letters, the decrees, of a king, are wholly and truly his own, though written by a secretary's pen and in a secretary's language,-so, and in a far larger and fuller sense, are the words, the "utterances of God," given to us in Holy Scripture, His own words-the words of Him "who is about our path, and about our bed, and spieth out all our ways," and who never left Moses, or Samuel, or Isaiah, or St. John, to give, in His name, lessons or injunctions which it was not His own purpose and will to give.

We have said that we are willing to accept Professor Jowett's proposal, and to receive, humbly, that idea of Scripture which we gather from the knowledge of it." We do not wish to

magnify the Word" above that estimate which the writers of that word themselves set upon it. Let it be our first enquiry, then, "What is the idea which we gather" from the study of Scripture, as to its own intrinsic value and authority?

We open the Bible; and we find, at the commencement, a series of writings called "the Pentateuch." The Jews, to whom "were committed the oracles of God," never knew a doubt as to the authorship of these books. Their Psalms proclaim, (ciii.) how "the Lord made known His ways unto Moses;" and how (cv.) Moses " showed signs in Egypt, and wonders in

the land of Ham." Their prophets speak of "the right hand of Moses," and of the indwelling of "the Holy Spirit within him" (Isa. Íxiii.); and they enjoin in God's name, "Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded him in Horeb, with the statutes and judgments." (Mal. iv. 4.) Still more, He, "in whom dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,' constantly bore witness to Moses. Are we to believe that the whole Jewish nation was deceived as to one of the plainest of facts; and that "He who knew what was in man," and who could read the very thoughts of the heart, did not know who was the real writer of the books of the Pentateuch? And why, and on what grounds, are we to adopt this strange belief? Because some German or English critics think they can discern reasons for a surmise, that Samuel wrote one part of the Pentateuch, and Jeremiah another! Yet if these same men were asked to believe that Cæsar's history of the wars in Gaul was written by Seneca or by Longinus, they would deem the broacher of such a speculation only fit for a lunatic asylum. But with reference to the Bible, any surmise or speculation, even the wildest, is eagerly welcomed.

We accept the unhesitating testimony of the whole Hebrew people; and the endorsement of Him who could say, "Before Abraham was, I AM," and we have no more doubt that the Pentateuch was written by Moses, than we have that the Æneid was written by Virgil, or Paradise Lost by John Milton. We turn, then, to the Pentateuch, and we ask, "What is the idea❞ (of its character and authority) "which we gather from a study of it."

First, What was the position and standing of Moses towards God and towards the people? Let the following passages answer this question :

"Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say." (Exod. iv. 12.)

"And the Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven." (Exod. xvii. 14.)

"The Lord said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and believe thee for ever." (Exod. xix. 9.)

"And Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the Lord hath said will we do. And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord." (Exod. xxiv. 3, 4.)

"And the Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel." (Exod. xxxiv. 27.)

"And Moses wrote their goings out according to their journeys by the commandment of the Lord." (Numb. xxxiii. 2.)

"There arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face." (Deut. xxxiv. 10.)

Nothing, surely, can be clearer than Moses' position before the people, as God's messenger. Next, then, we ask, What was the authority which, under the command of God, Moses claimed for his writings?

"Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the Lord my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it. Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations." (Deut. iv. 5, 6.)

“These words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up." (Deut. vi. 6, 7.)

"And when he (the king) sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites. And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words of this law, and these statutes, to do them." (Deut. xvii. 18, 19.)

"And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and unto all the elders of Israel. And Moses commanded them, Gather the people together, men, and women, and children, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the Lord your God, and observe to do all the words of this law." (Deut. xxxi. 9-12.)

Can it be questioned, then, that Moses stood before the people, adopted and presented by God himself, as His secretary, His minister, who should speak to them and record for them, for all future generations, the will and utterances of God." We do not feel the least hesitation in saying that "this is the idea of the Pentateuch, which we gather from the study of it." The idea, we mean, of a certain Sacred Book, written by God's command; by "holy men of God, who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Pet. i. 21.) And in such a book we cannot for a moment imagine that any untrue statement, or any unauthorized command, was ever allowed to find a place.

We pass on, then, to the other prophets of Old Testament times. And, first, we remark, that having established, in the most distinct and emphatic manner, a certain "book of the Law," a Divine record, among the Israelites, that book of record is continued in the case of the subsequent prophets, with less of particularity and emphasis. Moses had been publicly adopted, publicly presented to the people, as God's messenger, God's prophet. When his right to speak on God's